Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah. Lots of shootings in Chicago. That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states. States without strong gun laws. Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

So basically you twist and torture the evidence to validate your stance? Not surprising, but at least you are honest.

Quote

Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A. Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."

Quote

It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".

It's nice to see you admit it's possible. Actually roughly 1 in 5 Americans support repealing the 2nd amendment. So likely much closer to your chances of becoming a millionaire than hitting the powerball. BTW, repealing the 2A doesn't automatically mean a complete ban of firearms. Probably why it has more backing than you give it credit for.

Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Three people were killed and 13 others were wounded in shootings across the city between about 1 a.m. and 11 p.m. Monday.

By 5 a.m., 11 people had been shot.

The most recent fatal shooting happened about 1:35 p.m. in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

Anthony Perry, 30, was shot in the chest and abdomen about 1:35 p.m. in the 500 block of North Laramie after getting into an argument with a group of four males, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, authorities said. He lived in the Lawndale neighborhood.

Witnesses told police they saw four males running away from the scene, police said. Area North detectives were investigating.

Five people were shot, two fatally, minutes after the sun rose in the University Village neighborhood on the Near West Side.

The shooting happened about 4:50 a.m. after a party at the ABLA/Brooks Homes in the 1300 block of South Loomis, police said.

Shalonza E. McToy, 22, was discovered at 1400 South Washburne and was pronounced dead at the scene, according to police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. She had been shot in the head, chest, left arm and ear.

Erin Carey, 17, was shot multiple times in the head and was taken by paramedics to Stroger Hospital in “very critical” condition. The boy died about 1:15 a.m. Tuesday at the hospital, according to authorities.

When officers arrived at the scene, a 21-year-old man and a 23-year-old man ran up to a police car. The younger man had been shot in the right calf and the older man suffered a gunshot wound to the right arm. Paramedics took both men to Stroger where their conditions had stabilized.

A 23-year-old man was taken to Mount Sinai hospital by his girlfriend where he was his condition stabilized. He had been shot multiple times in the abdomen, police said. Area Central detectives were conducting a homicide investigation.

The two most recent non-fatal shootings both happened in the Albany Park neighborhood on the Northwest Side.

At 11:02 p.m., a 33-year-old man was walking when he got into an argument with someone who fired a shot, striking him in the leg at 11:02 p.m. in the 4700 block of North Kimball, according to police.

He took himself to Swedish Covenant Hospital and was transferred to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where his condition was stabilized, police said.

About 10:42 p.m., a 30-year-old man was sitting in a vehicle with two friends when someone walked up and fired shots in the 3400 block of West Montrose, striking him in the torso, according to police. He was taken to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

About 7:55 p.m., a 28-year-old man was wounded in a shooting in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

The man was walking in the 100 block of North Parkside when he was shot in the chest, according to police. He did not know where the shots came from.

He was taken to Loretto Hospital, where his condition stabilized, police said.

Another man was shot about 4:20 p.m. in the South Side Woodlawn neighborhood.

The 29-year-old was driving a vehicle west in the 1600 block of East 67th Street about 4:20 p.m. when a small, black SUV pulled up and two people got out and opened fire, according to police.

He suffered a gunshot wound to the hand and drove himself to University of Chicago Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

A 44-year-old man was shot during a carjacking in the East Garfield Park neighborhood on the West Side about 5:10 a.m.

The carjacker shot the man in his abdomen and then stole his vehicle in the 700 block of North Monticello. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in serious condition, police said.

Earlier in the morning, two men were seriously wounded in separate shootings in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side.

A 37-year-old man was standing outside when he heard gunfire and was shot in the back about 4:30 a.m., in the 6600 block of South Justine Street. He was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where he was in serious condition, police said.

Another man was seriously wounded in Englewood about 2:40 a.m.

The 30-year-old was traveling in a vehicle in the 6000 block of South Racine when someone in a a vehicle following the man pulled out a weapon and fired shots, striking the man in the face, police said.

He took himself to Saint Bernard Hospital, where he was in serious condition.

Five minutes earlier, a 20-year-old woman was shot multiple times in the South Side Avalon Park neighborhood.

Witnesses told police they heard shots and found the woman lying in the street about 2:35 a.m. in the 1100 block of East 83rd Street. She was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where her condition stabilized. She had been shot multiple times in her head, leg, arm and hand, police said.

Five minutes before that, a 33-year-old man was shot in the Park Manor neighborhood on the South Side.

About 2:30 a.m., the man was arguing with someone about money in the 7400 block of South Perry Avenue, according to police. The other person pulled out a weapon and shot the man in his chest.

He was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center in critical condition, police said.

The first non-fatal shooting of the day happened about 1:10 a.m. A 22-year-old man was taking out his garbage when someone in a passing vehicle fired shots in the 2600 block of South Homan Avenue in the Little Village neighborhood, police said.

He was struck in his leg and was taken in fair condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, police said. Area Central detectives were investigating the shooting.

On Sunday, three people were killed and 16 others were wounded by gun violence.

Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

So basically you twist and torture the evidence to validate your stance? Not surprising, but at least you are honest.

Quote

Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A. Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."

Quote

It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".

It's nice to see you admit it's possible. Actually roughly 1 in 5 Americans support repealing the 2nd amendment. So likely much closer to your chances of becoming a millionaire than hitting the powerball. BTW, repealing the 2A doesn't automatically mean a complete ban of firearms. Probably why it has more backing than you give it credit for.

Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

So basically you twist and torture the evidence to validate your stance? Not surprising, but at least you are honest.

Quote

Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A. Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."

Quote

It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".

It's nice to see you admit it's possible. Actually roughly 1 in 5 Americans support repealing the 2nd amendment. So likely much closer to your chances of becoming a millionaire than hitting the powerball. BTW, repealing the 2A doesn't automatically mean a complete ban of firearms. Probably why it has more backing than you give it credit for.

Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah. Lots of shootings in Chicago. That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states. States without strong gun laws. Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

They need something. Did you read all of the violence, all from just Monday. And if you go to the source, Sunday was worse. 6 people dead in 2 days. My argument is not "pro-gun" just that "Gun Violence" has less to do with the gun and more to do with human nature. This death rate is a societal norm for this region. Face it, 2A is not going away, period. But nobody wants to discuss root cause. And worse, they want to demonize police for trying to keep violence at bay. Yes, I agree some cops are bad, a very few. And yes, I am sure many are not trained well enough to police in a near-war zone. People need to be held accountable if the lawless mentality is ever expected to reverse course.

It is too easy to laugh it off and to say, well yeah, but that is Chicago.... And move on as if these people aren't important. Gang violence, drug violence they are directly tied to the movement of large scale weapon caches. Even consider absent parents and a lack of morals and virtues, many of these kids are raised in gang violence, who protests that? People claim like they want to be a hero and make a difference but what good is a rally to protest a cold dead gun when gangs and drugs are so prevalent?

- Nobody? I guess I'm a nobody- Who's they?- Chicago is certainly different than say New York City or Houston (23.8 murders/100,000 - 3.4 murder/100,000 - Houston 13.3 murders/100,000), but I don't think that's funny.- How do you protest absent parents? Maybe ask for laws that encourage parents to be responsible? worth considering- Some. But not as much as other angles to approach the problem from. Unfortunately it's hard to get people together to protest things that are less visible like those morals you brought up.

I can agree that the existence of guns isn't the only driver of violent crime. I think most if not all of the GCA crowd would agree as well, but I don't see that as an argument for or against gun control.

Your numbers are wrong. According to your chart, LA has the highest at 10.2, IL you claim has 11.7?

Also, IL is darker than IN, but you claim IL is 11.7 and IN is 15?

Nice try though.

The difference you're describing is probably due to the fact that the image is for death rates without suicides (as is described on the picture). The data from Wikipedia includes suicides.

Do you have any complaints that are not related to your apparent difficulties with reading?

That's rich. My inabilities to read? You put some numbers and then show me a graph that directly contradicts those numbers with the caption "let's look at it visually" and it's my inability to read? Why is it not your inability to provide consistent sources?

BUT, now that you've asked, yes, I do have an issue with the numbers, namely that when you exclude suicides which I think is the obvious thing to do when discussing gun crimes, all of the states you cited except MS have a lower rate than IL, even with their more permissive gun laws.

So, it would seem my point stands, if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL? You've basically only proved my point for me.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

Quote

Quote

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw gunsStep 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulationStep 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

Roll eyes. Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works? It's not a 67% popularity contest. I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant. That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

Quote

Quote

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw gunsStep 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulationStep 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

Roll eyes. Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works? It's not a 67% popularity contest. I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant. That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote

Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh? My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah). If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime? No.Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed? No.Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime? Yes.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

Sorry, I didn't understand exactly which semantics game we were playing.

The explicit thing I meant was

Quote

If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Exact same thing being "silly and ineffective".

IOW, if you agree rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective than rounding up all guns of a certain type is also silly and ineffective.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

Quote

Quote

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw gunsStep 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulationStep 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

Roll eyes. Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works? It's not a 67% popularity contest. I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant. That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote

Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh? My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah). If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

"any sort of firearm-specific ban" would not require the 2nd amendment to be overturned.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

Sorry, I didn't understand exactly which semantics game we were playing.

The explicit thing I meant was

Quote

If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Exact same thing being "silly and ineffective".

IOW, if you agree rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective than rounding up all guns of a certain type is also silly and ineffective.

Call it semantics if you want but:

ex·act - 1.not approximated in any way; precise.

This is kind of like when a teenage girl says "I literally put my foot in my mouth". I have to ask to be sure she didn't mean the opposite of literally.

if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime? No.Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed? No.Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime? Yes.

So are you talking about gun crimes or gun deaths, including or excluding suicides? Why not pick one and stick to it so we can stop playing this silly game of gotcha?

At any rate, I didn't make the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns, I said that their problem isn't as bad as IL's, even though it has strict gun laws, and your own figures proved that true with the exception of Mississippi.

So, -given that states with lax gun laws don't have as big a problem with guns (*ex Mississippi) as Illinois, and,-it is already illegal to buy a handgun over state lines without going through a licensed FFL in you home state in all 50 states,

What new laws do you propose that are going to magically fix Illinois's gun violence problem?

Because from where I sit, it does not appear that your theory that lax gun laws in other states is IL's problem is true.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

Sorry, I didn't understand exactly which semantics game we were playing.

The explicit thing I meant was

Quote

If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Exact same thing being "silly and ineffective".

IOW, if you agree rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective than rounding up all guns of a certain type is also silly and ineffective.

Call it semantics if you want but:

ex·act - 1.not approximated in any way; precise.

This is kind of like when a teenage girl says "I literally put my foot in my mouth". I have to ask to be sure she didn't mean the opposite of literally.

Again, the antecedent of "exact same thing" is "silly and ineffective".

if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime? No.Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed? No.Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime? Yes.

I see your stats, what do you propose? I try to avoid guns are good / guns are bad counter productivity but what laws are you proposing? Most of the laws currently being discussed are "Assualt" style weapons but the 2 day death and injury toll seems to be mostly hand guns. In both Chicago and most likely the states in violation, the guns being used are supposed to be tracked by laws that were broken.

Most of the offenders are likely prior offenders, so is this a prison release, reform issue also or are we just looking at the guns as the violators?

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

Quote

Quote

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw gunsStep 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulationStep 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

Roll eyes. Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works? It's not a 67% popularity contest. I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant. That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote

Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh? My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah). If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

"any sort of firearm-specific ban" would not require the 2nd amendment to be overturned.

You're conflating two separate ideas.

Originally, someone said something about outlawing all guns. I gave them a blueprint, including overturning the 2A.

Then you chimed in with it's not about banning all guns, and I said that a partial ban on guns, like an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity ban, is silly for the same reasons, and those ARE approaches favored by the left.

I never meant to insinuate that you need to overturn the 2A to institute those bans, however I think we are inching closer to that issue being heard by the Supreme Court (see the recent restraining order on Deerfield, IL's AWB).

I really missed the mark here. I really just stumbled onto Monday's Chicago festivities. I forgot it was Fathers Day Weekend. There are better stats for this active Chicago time. Yeah, really going to hold on to my weapons as Baltimore and Philadelphia start to look more and more like Chicago.

CHICAGO — At least nine people were killed and 45 others were wounded over the weekend in shootings, an ugly turn for the nation's third-largest city as it made progress stemming the murder rate in the first half of 2018.

In addition to the weekend’s fatal shootings, the city recorded a tenth homicide early Monday. A man, who police said was in his 30s, was killed by blunt force trauma on the city’s Southwest Side. Police said they found a weapon but declined to give details about it or the circumstances of the killing.

Investigators said many of the weekend's incidents were gang-related. The city historically sees a frustrating uptick in gun violence as the temperature warms. Chicago reached a high of 95 on Sunday, according to the National Weather Service.

First Deputy Superintendent Anthony Riccio said the spike in violence is “frustrating,” even as Chicago has seen gun violence decline in recent months — shootings and murders are down about 20 percent so far this year.

The downward trend in violence in 2018 follows two difficult years — Chicago recorded 650 murders in 2017 and 762 in 2016 — in which the city saw homicide rates of the late 1980s and 1990s, when Chicago and other big metropolises were in the midst of the crack-cocaine epidemic.

“We continue to make progress despite what some of these numbers look like — some very good progress,” Riccio told reporters about the bloody weekend. “But we’re not happy at all about this. We’re not saying our progress is a success by any means. But we are continuing to move in the right direction.”

In one of the most chaotic scenes over the weekend, a 23-year-old woman was fatally shot and five others were wounded in a pre-dawn incident Monday on the grounds of a public housing complex on the city’s West Side. Police said the shooting was sparked by a dispute, and bullet casings recovered by detectives indicated multiple weapons were fired.

When police and EMTs arrived, one of the wounded, a 17-year-old boy, appeared so badly injured that first responders thought he was dead and placed a sheet over him as they tended to the other victims.

Riccio said officers realized the boy was still alive after seeing movement under the sheet. The boy was taken to a nearby hospital, where he remains on life support, Riccio said.

At least four of the victims were “known to police” prior to the incident, and there is an ongoing conflict between rival gangs going on in the area, Riccio said. None of the victims is cooperating with the police.

“We believe they have a significant amount of information that would be helpful in this case,” Riccio said. “But for reasons we do not know, they are not cooperating,”

In another multiple casualty incident, three men and a woman were wounded on the city’s Southwest side late Sunday by an unknown assailant. The most seriously injured in that incident was a 21-year-old man who police described as known gang member. He had a gunshot wound to the chest and was listed in critical condition.

Police said no suspects were in custody in any of the deadly shootings.

The other fatal incidents include:•A 26-year-old man was standing on the sidewalk on the city’s South Side Sunday when an unknown assailant approached and fired several shots The victim, who was shot in the head, was pronounced dead on the scene.•A 17-year-old boy, who police said was a known gang member, was shot Saturday while in the backyard of a home on the city’s West Side.•A 28-year-old man, who police said had gang ties, died in the hospital after being shot several times in the upper body late Friday. A second victim in that incident, a 24-year-old male who police said was also a gang member, had a graze wound to the foot and refused medical attention, police said.•A 24-year-old man shot himself in the head after a SWAT officer shot him in the stomach several hours into an encounter early Saturday on the South Side, police said. Police arrived after receiving reports that the man had fired shots from a handgun before barricading himself in a garage.•A 43-year-old man and 22-year-old were killed outside a retail establishment on the South Side late Friday. Police said the 22-year-old, who was shot in the chest, was a known gang member and appeared to be the intended target. The older victim happened to be near and got hit in the gunfire.•A 26-year-old man was in the basement of a home Friday on the North Side when he got into an argument with another man, who pulled out a gun and shot the victim in the head. •A 12-year-old girl was pronounced dead early Friday after being shot in the neck while attending an outdoor gathering on the city’s West Side. She'nyah O'Flynn, who was from Michigan and visiting family, and a 36-year-old man, who was shot in the leg, were struck when two unknown gunmen opened fire at the scene. Police said neither were the intended targets of the gunmen.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do. What do I mean? A number of different things. One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent. It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed.

Quote

Quote

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw gunsStep 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulationStep 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote

Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

Roll eyes. Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works? It's not a 67% popularity contest. I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant. That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote

Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh? My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah). If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left. If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

"any sort of firearm-specific ban" would not require the 2nd amendment to be overturned.

You're conflating two separate ideas.

Originally, someone said something about outlawing all guns. I gave them a blueprint, including overturning the 2A.

Then you chimed in with it's not about banning all guns, and I said that a partial ban on guns, like an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity ban, is silly for the same reasons, and those ARE approaches favored by the left.

I never meant to insinuate that you need to overturn the 2A to institute those bans, however I think we are inching closer to that issue being heard by the Supreme Court (see the recent restraining order on Deerfield, IL's AWB).

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem. They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence. Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns. We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast. And what is their raison d'etre? To kill lots of targets really fast. So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem. They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence. Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns. We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast. And what is their raison d'etre? To kill lots of targets really fast. So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second? Assault weapons are not really a problem except in a few very rare cases? And there have been plenty of mass shootings carried out with handguns and shotguns as well.

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem. They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence. Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns. We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast. And what is their raison d'etre? To kill lots of targets really fast. So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second? Assault weapons are not really a problem except in a few very rare cases? And there have been plenty of mass shootings carried out with handguns and shotguns as well.[/quote]

No, they are not a contradiction. Handguns are commonly used in suicides, assault rifles are not. And many many gun deaths are suicides. I also left the definition of assault weapon open, because are there not many shot guns and hand guns that can be set up to shoot many rounds quickly? In that case they fall into my definition of assault weapon, which is anything that can do a lot of shooting quickly. I specifically said the appearance was irrelevant.

I was trying to point out that although there are good arguments for stricter control on assault weapons, there are equally good arguments to be made for stricter control on handguns. Mass shootings are more newsworthy, but hand guns kill a lot of people, in ones and twos and threes, instead of dozens at a time.

Sort of the same as an airplane tragedy kills a lot of people at once, but car accidents kill a lot more people, just in ones and twos and threes.

Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks. You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there".

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system. The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark.

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer.

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens. Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks. You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there".

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system. The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark.

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer.

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens. Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

Come on, man. Law abiding means they (we) aren't out killing anyone or committing armed robbery, that sort of thing. And quite frankly, unless you change the Constitution, any attempt to confiscate all guns will be viewed as not a legal law, given that it's unconstitutional.

If, for instance, I lived in Deerfield right now (and it's only a couple of towns over from me) I would not be planning on turning in any AR-15s or pistols with "high capacity" magazines I may or may not own just because some chucklehead town council members said I should in violation of the laws of Illinois.

Of course you're going to point to this and scream "see, not law abiding, see!" but that's very different than not law abiding like the three-time convict wandering Chicago with a hand gun and a gang affiliation looking to knock over a liquor store or defend his "turf" against a rival gang.

if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime? No.Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed? No.Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime? Yes.

At any rate, I didn't make the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns, I said that their problem isn't as bad as IL's, even though it has strict gun laws, and your own figures proved that true with the exception of Mississippi.

The figures that I provide show that gun deaths tend to be higher in places with lax gun laws. You appear to be referring specifically to the problem of gun crime. Chicago has more crime than many other places in the US. Access to guns doesn't cause crime of course, there are plenty of factors involved in that. Providing criminals with easy access to guns (as the permissive states you're talking about do) is a problem though.

What new laws do you propose that are going to magically fix Illinois's gun violence problem?

I don't have a magical fix for Illinois gun violence problem. I have suggestions that will help though (and will also help reduce the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals nation wide).

- Make a background check a requirement for all sales of firearms in the US.- Keep a national registry of firearms sold.

This way it won't be possible for criminals to buy a gun. It will be easy to prosecute people making straw purchases for criminals. Anyone out of state who buys a gun can be flagged so that they're searched when re-entering their state (or they can simply be prevented from buying a gun that's not legal in their home state - whichever is deemed less intrusive to the rights of gun owners).

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime? No.Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed? No.Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime? Yes.

Lax gun laws in other states makes Illinois gun crime problem worse. It's certainly not the only thing that can be improved, but is a contributing factor.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem. They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence. Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns. We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast. And what is their raison d'etre? To kill lots of targets really fast. So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second? Assault weapons are not really a problem except in a few very rare cases? And there have been plenty of mass shootings carried out with handguns and shotguns as well.

Have you ever done any risk management? When you're assessing risks and deciding which ones to take steps to mitigate you don't only address the events that are most likely to happen. You also take steps to mitigate rare events with catastrophic results. You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks. You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there".

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system. The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark.

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer.

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens. Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

I actually read this more as an argument that criminals who use guns to break the law obviously don't care about breaking the law and therefore won't follow the law that restricts their owning a gun. I think this argument is flawed because it's not just a matter of "deciding" to break the law. It's a matter of access and convenience. This is also why I care more about things like universal background checks and a gun registry, but I can acknowledge that a full on ban would absolutely reduce the number of guns available to criminals (not that I support such a thing). Yes there are millions of guns out there right now and yes there would be a significant transition period as these guns are taken away from the population, but making guns more scarce would make it harder for criminals to obtain them.

I suspect this is also why Illinois' restrictions have not seen better results. It is now illegal for certain people to have guns in Chicago but those people still have easy access to guns. So the argument that criminals don't follow the rules is true but we don't necessarily need them to. We need the gun shops and lawful gun owners to not sell guns to/allow them to be stolen by the wrong people. Doing so in a small localized area is going to be inadequate for obvious reasons.

Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks. You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there".

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system. The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark.

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer.

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens. Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

Come on, man. Law abiding means they (we) aren't out killing anyone or committing armed robbery, that sort of thing. And quite frankly, unless you change the Constitution, any attempt to confiscate all guns will be viewed as not a legal law, given that it's unconstitutional.

If, for instance, I lived in Deerfield right now (and it's only a couple of towns over from me) I would not be planning on turning in any AR-15s or pistols with "high capacity" magazines I may or may not own just because some chucklehead town council members said I should in violation of the laws of Illinois.

Of course you're going to point to this and scream "see, not law abiding, see!" but that's very different than not law abiding like the three-time convict wandering Chicago with a hand gun and a gang affiliation looking to knock over a liquor store or defend his "turf" against a rival gang.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine. I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine. I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine. I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?

All sorts of things. I'm required to have a FOID in IL to buy a firearm or ammo. I'm required to wait a certain time between purchasing and possessing a firearm. I'm charged a substantial fee for exercising my right to carry a weapon. Etc etc etc.

Basically, I look at it like this: take any law regarding firearms, and apply it to voting, and see if you would allow it to stand. If not, why should one Constitutional right be subject to more restraints than another? Why is an ID to vote completely unacceptable but one to own a gun is? Etc.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine. I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine. I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?

All sorts of things.

I'm required to have a FOID in IL to buy a firearm or ammo. I'm required to wait a certain time between purchasing and possessing a firearm. I'm charged a substantial fee for exercising my right to carry a weapon. Etc etc etc.

Basically, I look at it like this: take any law regarding firearms, and apply it to voting, and see if you would allow it to stand. If not, why should one Constitutional right be subject to more restraints than another? Why is an ID to vote completely unacceptable but one to own a gun is? Etc.

The voting laws you're referring to are very explicit and covered by multiple amendments to ensure their clarity in the constitution. Nobody objects to people being required to identify themselves to vote. Recent objections have been made when identity as a formal process is used to disproportionately exclude people based on race (which is a clear violation of the 15th amendment).

Amendment 15:"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

An FOID (for example) is quite dissimilar . . . as no attempt has been made to clearly exclude people from owning firearms based on race. There's also no further amendment protecting the rights of any race, sex, or age to own firearms (all of the previous have their own amendments for voting). Even the right to own a gun is not protected by the second amendment . . . it just refers to amorphous 'arms'. Can you elaborate exactly what part of the second amendment you feel is being violated by the items you listed?

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone. And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation. You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns. I agree.

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine. I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?

All sorts of things. I'm required to have a FOID in IL to buy a firearm or ammo. I'm required to wait a certain time between purchasing and possessing a firearm. I'm charged a substantial fee for exercising my right to carry a weapon. Etc etc etc.

Basically, I look at it like this: take any law regarding firearms, and apply it to voting, and see if you would allow it to stand. If not, why should one Constitutional right be subject to more restraints than another? Why is an ID to vote completely unacceptable but one to own a gun is? Etc.

Because different situations/problems call for different solutions? An ID for voting is not completely unacceptable to me. If it is provided freely and at times and places that are convenient for everybody then I would be fine with requiring an ID to vote. I would also be fine with placing the same requirements on a federal firearms ID if we created one.

If that's your standard though, I'm not sure why you have a problem with having a waiting period. Only ~17 states currently allow same day registration.

So that's 1 child per 100,000 gun owners. But that number includes gang violence (committed generally by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners) and homicides (again generally committed by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners). The only number that really represents legal gun owners at fault is accidents, which was probably around 200 kids or so. Or in other words a rate of 0.16 : 100,000 or 1 per 600,000 gun owners.

Not to mention that in 2016, 4,648 young people ages 10-24 were victims of homicide - an average of 13 each day. But yet only 1200 below 18 died of gunshots... So it seems that we have a violence problem not a firearm problem.

Once we take a look at where the violence is occurring, it becomes pretty clear that rural, white gun owners aren't the problem. Violent crime is the problem, and its consistently falling. And yet all of the 'gun control' is aimed directly at white, typically rural, gun owners.

Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

TexasRunner, the difficulty in doing analysis from those articles is that they don't differentiate (or at least I missed it) what kind of gun. People comment on the gun mortality differences between Canada and the US, but the biggest difference is that we basically prohibit handguns and the US doesn't. Basically if someone who is not law enforcement (or a Brinks guard) has a handgun, it is an illegal handgun - so we get gang shootings with handguns.

There have been so many threads about US gun control in Off Topic, and they have all gone nowhere and eventually have been shut down, please read them before getting the whole discussion going again here.

Not to mention that in 2016, 4,648 young people ages 10-24 were victims of homicide - an average of 13 each day. But yet only 1200 below 18 died of gunshots... So it seems that we have a violence problem not a firearm problem.

So you're comparing two different age groups over two different time periods?

Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...